No Authority Cited To Engraft Contract Principle Into SLAPP Recovery. We do have to hand it to the non-prevailing party on a SLAPP motion for creativity. In Ricketts v. Integrity Property Management, Case No. B302685 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 27, 2021) (unpublished), a non-prevailing SLAPP litigant argued that mandatory SLAPP fees were “capped” […]
The Protected Activity Claimed By Defendant Supported Only An Element Of Plaintiff’s Causes Of Action, But Did Not Subject Those Causes Of Action To A Challenge Under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16. In Verceles v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., Case No. B303182 (2d Dist., Div. 7 April 19, 2021) (unpublished), FEHA plaintiff
Earlier, She Was Ordered To Pay $2,625 In Fees To A Third Prevailing Defendant. Carlsbad Councilwoman Cori Schumacher, a former surfing champion, brought a civil harassment claim against Anthony Bona, Noel Breen, and Larry Posner for their outspoken criticism of her on social media. Unfortunately, her petition was dismissed as to Mr. Posner in
Counsel’s Declarations Alone Can Support Such An Award, Especially One Modest In Amount. This one falls in our SERIOUSLY category, a new one coined by Shanna Strader, who does do some great posts for this blog. In Wong v. Wong, Case No. A159009 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 3, 2021) (unpublished), defendant partially
SLAPP Motion Sought To Strike Allegations That Were Not Connected To An Identified Claim For Relief, But Was Not Frivolous. In Noguera v. Hull, Case No. A157714 (1st Dist., Div. 1 January 29, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff sued neighbor defendants for their alleged failure to pay their share of improvement costs for certain improvements to
Defendants’ Internet And Twitter Statements Against Plaintiffs Consisted Mainly Of "Vulgar And/Or Adolescent Personal Insults, Misogynistic, Racist, And Xenophobic Comments, And Other Slurs Having Nothing To Do With Any Reasoned Discussion Of Trustworthiness, Competence, Or Any Other 'Public Issue Or An Issue Of Public Interest.'” In Block v. Bramzon, Case Nos. B292129/B297198 (2d
Defendant Was Entitled To Recover Fees And Costs Incurred In Responding To Plaintiff’s Numerous Attempts To Overturn The Trial Court’s Grant Of The SLAPP Motion, Not Just The Fees/Costs She Incurred In Bringing The Anti-SLAPP Motion. After successfully SLAPPing plaintiff’s complaint and being awarded $10,910 in attorney fees and $60 in costs under
No Meet And Confer Requirement Under SLAPP Statute, With Cross-Complainant Not Dismissing The Cross-Complaint Until After The SLAPP Motion Was Filed. In Trinity Risk Management, LLC v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc., Case No. B297176 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 11, 2021 unpublished; published on Jan. 14, 2021), a cross-complainant—although indicating an intent to
Not Huge Amounts, But Some Challenges Were Untimely And Some Were Not Meritorious. To end the year, we post on Storix, Inc. v. Johnson, Case Nos. D075308/D077096 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 31, 2020) (unpublished), which was a very contested dispute between software company Storix and founder Mr. Johnson, which dragged in various directors
Matter Was Close, But Deference To Trial Judge Made The Difference. In Guinnane Construction Co., Inc. v. Chess, Case No. A157781 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 22, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff won a SLAPP motion and moved for fees based on the contention that the defense motion was frivolous. The trial judge denied plaintiff’s fee
